Yeah Congress!

Obama/Coburn bill on transparency in govt earmarks ^{(^)}

It's strange that the whole "earmark" thing, which has existed for . . . ever, has only been a big deal since the Dems took control of Congress in 2006. Not that people shouldn't biatch about this now--they definitely should--but how come nobody biatched about it when it was people like Tom Delay and Bill Frist who were the ones controlling all the earmarks?

Cyberluddite: It's strange that the whole "earmark" thing, which has existed for . . . ever, has only been a big deal since the Dems took control of Congress in 2006. Not that people shouldn't biatch about this now--they definitely should--but how come nobody biatched about it when it was people like Tom Delay and Bill Frist who were the ones controlling all the earmarks?

Whatchyoutalkinbout? People have been biatching about this for decades. Unfortunately, those same people are dumb enough to keep electing the same people over and over.

Hobodeluxe: Obama/Coburn bill on transparency in govt earmarks (^)

EMPTY SUIT!!!! Just another politician! etc.

Cyberluddite: It's strange that the whole "earmark" thing, which has existed for . . . ever, has only been a big deal since the Dems took control of Congress in 2006. Not that people shouldn't biatch about this now--they definitely should--but how come nobody biatched about it when it was people like Tom Delay and Bill Frist who were the ones controlling all the earmarks?

Then we should vote to put Republicans back in charge. If it doesn't solve the problem it'll at least stifle all the noise.

The problem with earmarks is that no one can get rid of them, because it's political suicide. Moving towards transparency, yes, but not banning them. It's a damn shame, too. a LOT of good bills have been sunk due to bad earmarks, and a lot of bad earmarks have gotten through riding on good bills.

Naman: It's a damn shame, too. a LOT of good bills have been sunk due to bad earmarks, and a lot of bad earmarks have gotten through riding on good bills.

Yes, but a lot of good earmarks have gotten through also.

Come, let's play FREE BEER POKER!!!

You get all the FREE BEER you can drink. But for every 10 card you get, I get an Ace, and if you happen to win a hand, I still get to keep half the pot plus half of your bet, and my friends get what's left.

If you have a problem with these rules, we'll just beat you up and steal your money, so ante up citizen!

/Oh, and by "FREE BEER" we mean "WATER" and you have to pay for it.

One of the high schools in the metro Phoenix area is known to cause bad health problems with students and faculty. They are attributing this to the way the buildings were constructed with the materials used. The area representative has suggested an earmark that would fun the repair and rebuilding of the school to resolve these health problems.
This is a large school, too.

Is this a 'bad' earmark?

rppp01a --
Yes. Why is the botched construction of local schools within the Federal purview, instead of something to be funded at a state level?

fun the repair and rebuilding

So laughter really is the best medicine?

Of course, there are appropriate and inappropriate earmarks.

I just wish they'd go back to calling it pork. Mmmmmmm. Pooork.

Car_Ramrod: Hobodeluxe: Obama/Coburn bill on transparency in govt earmarks (^)

EMPTY SUIT!!!! Just another politician! etc.

FTFA:

Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ) are original cosponsors of this legislation.

Don't forget to mention who first came up with the idea.

:p

Cyberluddite: It's strange that the whole "earmark" thing, which has existed for . . . ever, has only been a big deal since the Dems took control of Congress in 2006.

You apparently have forgotten that Nancy Pelosi promised to end earmarks. She didn't and the biatching began.

Korovyov: rppp01a --
Yes. Why is the botched construction of local schools within the Federal purview, instead of something to be funded at a state level?

This I don't know. How are schools built and funded? With what money? Federal or State or both?

...and for those that think the complaining started recently, the Golden Fleece Award was started in 1975.

rppp01a: One of the high schools in the metro Phoenix area is known to cause bad health problems with students and faculty. ...

Is this a 'bad' earmark?

That was a state matter. And the bill put forth by Huppenthal and McComish is just a $3 million loan (to fix a $16 million problem) that would be paid back by a future bond issue, despite the fact that voters from the district in question didn't pass the last one.

rppp01a --
Most education spending is done at the state or lower level, as it should be as per constitutional limitations. It's hardly unusual to for Congressmen to violate those limitations and direct money towards purely local projects without any correspondence to the enumerated powers, or any demonstrable link to the general welfare of the whole nation, or interstate commerce.

Same shiat, different day. Its how Congress works. I sincerely hope that the democrats do not win enough seats in Congress to break a filibuster. If Congress is locked in a filibuster at least they aren't passing bills which always seem to increase the size of the government or do absolutely nothing but waste money.

Obama is such a leader!

He opposes earmarks, yet doesn't do anything to stop them in Congress

He opposes lobbyist money, yet allows for the DCCC/DSCC to receive money from lobbyists.

He's all talk and no walk. John McCain has a record of cracking down on earmarks and he will continue to crack down as President.

I wonder how many earmarks Obama will give to Jeremiah Wright in this budget.

rppp01a:

It's not a bad cause, but it's a bad earmark for a federal budget. Schools are funded primarily by local property taxes. Your local government probably repeatedly voted down property tax increases, and that is why your schools can't raise the money to fix their own problems. Turning to the federal budget means everyone, including people like me way over in Virginia, have to pay for what should come out of your own pockets.

rppp01a: How are schools built and funded? With what money? Federal or State or both?

Both. The Feds give block grants to the states, each of which divvies up the monies among its school districts according to whatever statutory funding they have set up. State taxes are also levied and distributed according to a complicated formula. Additionally, school districts are taxable entities (you usually pay based on your property value).

The equations are simple.
wasteful spending that comes out of everyones pocket = complain uselessly.
wasteful spending not reaching your pocket = do something about it.

Hobodeluxe: Obama/Coburn bill on transparency in govt earmarks (^)

Obama: Make earmarks more transparent.
McCain: Stop earmarks.

I like McCain's approach better.

Congress continues to pursue a single digit approval...

Y'know, Congress isn't like the President. I would have to say I'm generally happy with my Congressmen than with Congress as a whole, and I think that goes for most people.

In fact, if you took the average approval ratings of each individual member of Congress in their home district, the overall approval rating of Congress would probably be surprisingly good.

John McCain casting himself in the role of Cap'n Clean: Foe of Earmarks, has been a central strategy in his run fer POTUS (Run? More of a "shambling shuffle" really) fer a bit now.

His claim to fame? Having NEVER accepted an earmark EVAR.

...or so he sez.

The entire system is out of control. The number of earmarks every year like the number of lobbyists just keep going up. Cleaning up the process and/or making it more transparent will take a lot of political will, very little of which seems forthcoming.

quatchi: John McCain casting himself in the role of Cap'n Clean: Foe of Earmarks, has been a central strategy in his run fer POTUS (Run? More of a "shambling shuffle" really) fer a bit now.

His claim to fame? Having NEVER accepted an earmark EVAR.

...or so he sez.

The entire system is out of control. The number of earmarks every year like the number of lobbyists just keep going up. Cleaning up the process and/or making it more transparent will take a lot of political will, very little of which seems forthcoming.

Guess you missed the investigative report a few months back where they found 2 whole earmarks in the last 8 years then had to retract at least one of them and were unsure of the other.

So go ahead and find an earmark with McCain's name on it, people have tried.

OINK

MyRandomName: So go ahead and find an earmark with McCain's name on it, people have tried.

So, McCain will do nothing to support the infrastructure and integrity of his home country?

helix400: Obama: Make earmarks more transparent.
McCain: Stop earmarks.

I like McCain's approach better.

"As part of a story published today on the McCain campaign's efforts to woo lobbyists and their big money client The Washington Post reviewed years of the senator's official correspondence to agencies that have been released over the years under the Freedom of Information Act. That review located this 1992 letter in which McCain privately pressed the Republican administration of President Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, to secure such a $5 million earmark for a wastewater project in Arizona after Congress had rejected the request in its own spending bill. Spurned by his colleagues, McCain took his case to the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 'I would like to request that EPA either re-program $5 million out of existing funds or earmark the amount from an appropriate account,' McCain wrote in his Oct. 9, 1992 letter to then-EPA Administrator William K. Reilly, calling the earmark 'crucial to protecting the public health and the environment.'" (John Solomon, "An Old Earmark Of McCain's Surfaces," The Washington Post's The Trail, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail, Posted 12/31/07)"

Yeah, his approach is nice, but it would be better if he was actually trying to get it to work.

Unright: MyRandomName: So go ahead and find an earmark with McCain's name on it, people have tried.

So, McCain will do nothing to support the infrastructure and integrity of his home country?

So now earmarks are a positive!

Funny how Republicans didn't give two shiats about earmarks at all between 2000 and 2006.

Odd. Can someone help explain this to me?

Naman 2008-06-06 07:30:14 PM
The problem with earmarks is that no one can get rid of them, because it's political suicide. Moving towards transparency, yes, but not banning them. It's a damn shame, too. a LOT of good bills have been sunk due to bad earmarks, and a lot of bad earmarks have gotten through riding on good bills.

There is a way: enact rules that make earmarking extremely difficult if not impossible for everyone. For many years it was impossible to close a domestic military base because some congressbeing or other had it in his district. Then congress came up with the Base Closure and Realignment(BRAC) Commission, which made base closures an all-or-nothing vote. That gave them enough cover to start closing unnecessary bases.

Goodfella: Funny how Republicans didn't give two shiats about earmarks at all between 2000 and 2006, and Democrats didn't care about them until now.

Odd. Can someone help explain this to me?

FTFY

muck4doo: So now earmarks are a positive!

Of course earmarks are positive, in general anyways. All an earmark is a congressional dictate as to how congressionally appropriated money must be spent. Meaning the spending of said money is not up to the discretion of the executive branch. It is congresses job to appropriate and dictate the spending of federal funds, it is what we pay them to do. It is one of the jobs of the executive branch to spend that money as congress dictates him to. The more congress earmarks the better. As to positive or negative, the merit of each earmark must be evaluated individually. Earmarks not the same thing as pork spending.

muck4doo: Unright: MyRandomName: So go ahead and find an earmark with McCain's name on it, people have tried.

So, McCain will do nothing to support the infrastructure and integrity of his home country?

So now earmarks are a positive!

Well, yeah. For the district that benefits. Why wouldn't they be?

Unright: muck4doo: Unright: MyRandomName: So go ahead and find an earmark with McCain's name on it, people have tried.

So, McCain will do nothing to support the infrastructure and integrity of his home country?

So now earmarks are a positive!

Well, yeah. For the district that benefits. Why wouldn't they be?

Just my opinion, but instead of ear marking things, why not propose a bill for those projects and vote for them on their own merit?

I had read somewhere a while ago that earmark spending makes up less than one-percent of the total federal budget. If true, the pursuit of their elimination will be an exercise in futility.

Link

Let's see, 15 billion is only half-percent of 3.2 trillion. This doesn't mean there aren't bad and wasteful earmarks, just that out nations problem with its finances remain elsewhere. I would like to see earmarks only used for domestic purposes, keep the military spending seperate considering its already immense size.

Goodfella: Funny how Republicans didn't give two shiats about earmarks at all between 2000 and 2006.

Odd. Can someone help explain this to me?

The party in power, regardless of who it is, never gives a shait about earmarks.

Goodfella: Funny how Republicans didn't give two shiats about earmarks at all between 2000 and 2006.

Odd. Can someone help explain this to me?

Because Kerry's record in Vietnam was shady and the gheys wanted to be allowed to marry each other. These were MUCH more important issues than fiscal responsibility.

doyner: Goodfella: Funny how Republicans didn't give two shiats about earmarks at all between 2000 and 2006.

Odd. Can someone help explain this to me?

Because Kerry's record in Vietnam was shady and the gheys wanted to be allowed to marry each other. These were MUCH more important issues than fiscal responsibility.

I believe that was the answer he was looking for.

muck4doo: Just my opinion, but instead of ear marking things, why not propose a bill for those projects and vote for them on their own merit?

The Grim Cheeper kinda covered it. An earmark just directs money a certain way. Pork barrel is generally the enemy of fiscal conservatives.

I'm doubting that you're not advocating that there needs to be a separate vote everytime a new post office needs to exist.

The Grim Creeper: Earmarks are not bad. Too often people confuse pork barrel spending with earmarks. Earmarks are simply money, already part of the budget, that is specified by a congressman to go to a certain project. These can often be good things - new post offices, military bases, bridges, etc.

Pork is the "bridge to nowhere". It's an earmark that is useless and a waste of money.

Of course, we hear about the pork because it's ridiculous. But people forget about the fact that their Senator earmarked money for expansion of a harbor near their city that has boosted the economy tenfold.

I showed up to say basically this. The problem is in the naming of "pork" vs. "earmarks" - to some extent, it's all subjective and political. And a lot of this stuff, although it's been painted as such, has nothing to do with a "pay to play" corrupt Congress. There's some stuff that's obviously dumb, like the bridge to nowhere. There's other stuff derided as "pork" that's not necessarily a bad idea. All depends which side of the aisle you're on.

Unright: muck4doo: Just my opinion, but instead of ear marking things, why not propose a bill for those projects and vote for them on their own merit?

The Grim Cheeper kinda covered it. An earmark just directs money a certain way. Pork barrel is generally the enemy of fiscal conservatives.

I'm doubting that you're not advocating that there needs to be a separate vote everytime a new post office needs to exist.

Why not? These assholes have way more vacation time than the rest of us get. Let them work for their pay, instead of having too much free time for constant campaigning.

/It would also make them maybe use their time better.

Regardless of the party doing it, it IS bullshiat. The whole point of congress not getting to cast secret votes is for their constituents to know what they support or reject. Diluting an otherwise worthy bill with a bunch of anonymous spending is cowardly at best. Never mind the fact that we'll be paying for this crap for the next 10 generations.

muck4doo: Why not? These assholes have way more vacation time than the rest of us get. Let them work for their pay, instead of having too much free time for constant campaigning.

/It would also make them maybe use their time better

There's no point in making them do this. It would decrease the quality of legislation, and it would remove power from the local communities and give it to the feds. Neither of these would be good outcomes.

Obdicut: muck4doo: Why not? These assholes have way more vacation time than the rest of us get. Let them work for their pay, instead of having too much free time for constant campaigning.

/It would also make them maybe use their time better

There's no point in making them do this. It would decrease the quality of legislation, and it would remove power from the local communities and give it to the feds. Neither of these would be good outcomes.

I would think it would increase the quality. Going over specific spending and legislating instead of bundling it together with a bunch of irrelevant crap is not helping? I would like to see that explained. Your local representatives could work with your senators to make sure the things most important get discussed, rather than hiding crap and bundling it to get enough time off to make sure you get more campaigning time.

Oh noes! Money flowing back to the taxpayers in the form of infrastructure instead of another war. That damn congress how dare they.

muck4doo: Going over specific spending and legislating instead of bundling it together with a bunch of irrelevant crap is not helping?

The question was posed as "I'm doubting that you're not advocating that there needs to be a separate vote every time a new post office needs to exist."

That's what you responded to.

So, every time a new ____ needs to exist, there would have to be a separate vote. A new onramp to a freeway. A new logging road. A new DMV. A new pier. A new anything.

You don't think that would slow down substantive legislative business? Congresscritters, the real ones, not the shiatty time-servers who just vote up and down with their parties, spend their time on large-scale stuff. Choking them with petty-ante crap is not going to do anything except reduce all government activity to the most petty.

You may see that as a good thing, but it would paralyze America's ability to react quickly to anything at all, not to mention address the large-scale issues that actually do need fixing, like social security, like the dismal state of education, and like repealing the entire PATRIOT act.

I think that the Confederates solution was the best, actually.

Oh, and earmarks can be a good thing. Pork is bad. Earmarks are entirely neutral.